[El Gato]

You say it explains just one (of many) reasons to protect the right. Would you allow the U.S. Supreme Court such latitude? "Yes, we know it says interstate commerce, but that's only one of many types of commerce that Congress can regulate."

The brief argues that the preamble does not restrict the operative clause. "interstate" does restrict/modify "commerce"

Although Congress is also given the power to regulate foreign commerce and commerce with the Indian nations. Congress has only those powers specifically delegated to it. They were only delegated the power to regulate those three types of commerce. Certainly not "intrastate commerce" nor "anything which affects" the commerce they have the power to regulate, since that would be pretty everything.

The two situation are not even comparable.

[robertpaulsen]

The second amendment reads, "a well regulated Militia" and your conclusion is that a well regulated Militia is but one of many reasons to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Where do you come up with that little ditty? The second amendment doesn't read, "A well regulated Militia, for example, being necessary to the ..."

I'm simply saying you wouldn't ever let the U.S. Supeme Court get away with such a rereading of the text. And you know you wouldn't.